Example of Map of Survey

Nice work generally. I like some of the items you have pointed out.

Thanks for posting this.

Where all all the various improvements to the properties? Stuff like houses, driveways, pools, sheds....etc.

> Where all all the various improvements to the properties? Stuff like houses, driveways, pools, sheds....etc.

LOL! I guess they haven't arrived yet. That 51 acres was prairie in 1838 when the land grant of which it is a part was first surveyed. It was prairie in 1870 when a surveyor gave ties to bearing trees more than half a mile away, and, aside from the mesquite trees that have grown up in places, it would still pass for prairie. It's the site of a future school

As for coordinates, I like them on the BOP, and possibly on the BOB. But ever since I sat through a class by an GIS "professional" it makes me a little nervous.

She found that the coordinates and the labled bearings and distances didn't match. So, she assumed the bearings were calc'd from the coordinates, and she held them. No discovery avout grid v ground, no understanding of how surveyors do their work.

It was incredible, and I realized then that GIS is in fact surveying without a license in a lot of situations.

I wonder if I really want to help people blindly type coordinates into a computer or handheld GPS.

Is this sorta what you want Kent?

2 Sheet Survey with Tables

> I wonder if I really want to help people blindly type coordinates into a computer or handheld GPS.

My supposition is that only surveyors will know how to properly use a list of rectangular coordinates in US Survey Feet on a projection of the Texas Coordinate System of 1983 for at least a decade or two more. Aside from land title insurance companies, surveyors are really the consumers of metes and bounds descriptions made a part of conveyances. Even architects seem defeated by the problem of even just plotting a description in quadrant bearings.

So, the object is how to efficiently transfer information to that surveyor who five or ten years from now will be set to the task of reestablishing the boundaries of the tract that were left in good order a few years ago. In Texas, coordinates in a standard projection would seem to be an excellent means of doing that.

In that particular area, the soils are deep, highly plastic clays, which means that they are highly expansive and that the top four feet of soil and all survey markers in it migrates over time on even minimal slopes with wet-and-dry cycles. Accurate coordinates should provide an excellent clue.

:good:

> Is this sorta what you want Kent?

Why wrap the point numbers in sausage casings and give them leaders? The object is to trim as much graphic noise as possible out of a map and that includes unnecessary leaders. The boundary of the tract doesn't jump out very well. It looks as if it needs to be heavier, but I haven't printed the pdf to see if it's the pdf or how it shows up on the monitor. Why such large letters on the large text?

> > Is this sorta what you want Kent?
>
> Why such large letters on the large text?

Really?

> > Why such large letters on the large text?
>
>
> Really?

Yeah. In a well-constructed map, you want the sizes of letters to step down in size in jumps of about 80% or so to distinguish their relative importance.

The idea is something that you want to look more important, something the viewer should take in before something lower in the heirarchy, ought to have more graphical weight. Font size is one way to make that happen, but it doesn't need to be much more than about 20% larger for the eye to read that distinction.

I don't know what you use to view pdf files. You should be able to zoom in as far as you wish. The boundary lines show really well once you zoom in (or print out). I did this quite a few years ago. I suppose I circled or sausaged the point labels to separate them from other numbers on the map, a symbol so to speak, some of the points have text labels instead of numbers. The software I use will do this automatic if you tell it to.

But hey, there are line tables, coordinate tables, note tables, UDOT tables. I mean heck, enough tables for a major Thanksgiving dinner if you like. This was a bit more complex survey with all the ROW's bounding it so I resorted to tables and such.

I'm not saying this is how anyone should do it, it's just how I did this one. It was the first survey I stamped with my license. Adobe Utah headquarters is now built on it.

Adobe Utah Campus

> I don't know what you use to view pdf files. You should be able to zoom in as far as you wish. The boundary lines show really well once you zoom in (or print out). I did this quite a few years ago.

Yes, the boundary of the subject tract was just drawn with too thin a line to really stand out the way that it should. It doesn't help that so many elements of the drawing that are really less important than the parcel boundary are drawn with much greater graphic weight, such as the record owners of the railroad and highway (but without noting the actual conveyances by which their interests were acquired, unless I've overlooked them).

I'm going to say that you could never use Arial Bold again and your drawings would probably be improved. That and starting out with only five font sizes evenly spaced in size from smallest to largest with a step ratio of between about 1.1 and 1.2.

I suppose that Utah surveyors are required by state law to draw full-scale images of the survey markers you set? Is this so that someone else can order good replicas of them in the future? Why isn't simply a description of the marker in words sufficient?

I always thought a picture was better than words, but its just me. At some point when we are finally allowed to just file a pdf instead of paper/Mylar I'll just attach actual pictures of the markers found or set. The diagrams of the markers do have text, it's something I decided to do, maybe I'd seen it somewhere else, not required by Utah regs.

I believe the UDOT deeds are listed under the UDOT tables, maybe the table was not a good place for them. I do have the RR stuff in a file somewhere but didn't get it on the map. It was an original grant from Congress, that's why its 200 feet wide (un patented land at the time). I went to the BLM office and went through the file, even got a copy of the original alignment survey, but it really didn't have all that much info on it. I have the VAL map. I remember going to the recorders office and looking up the deeds.

I'm sorry you don't like the text I used but I'm sure you can read it. To late anyway, this ones been filed as a public record for more than 5 years. It's kinda bad that you can't file your maps in a public record. At this point it wouldn't be that hard to set up a website and make them publicly available though. Wendell could do it (develop a website) if you don't wish to do it yourself.

> I always thought a picture was better than words, but its just me.

In the following description:

"Type B Marker" denotes a "+" on a 2-1/2 inch Aluminum Cap stamped "HIGHTERRA LLC, 2006 PLS 174871, DO NOT DISTURB, BOUNDARY MARKER" affixed to a 5/8 in. rebar.

It's a great way to free up real estate on the map for little stuff that needs to be bigger. Unless you are concerned that someone will find a 3-1/4 in. Aluminum Cap stamped "HIGHTERRA LLC SURVEY MARKER, LS 174871" and confuse it for one that you set, I'm not sure what the issue might be.

I'm with you. I find nothing more annoying. Especially curve or line data.

You may be right, maybe the marker diagrams shouldn't be on a survey plat. I don't know whether they used the description for conveyance or not, never checked back on this one. The property didn't sell for a few years after the survey, so the survey wasn't done for a pending sale.

Maybe I've gone to far with describing the markers. Its a reaction to the traditional description style in Utah of no mention of any monuments or markers in land descriptions. I call it metes without bounds, just a short list of bearings and distances with no calls to monuments. It's just a small step above a simple list of coordinates and nothing else.

I know my maps could be better and have noted your suggestions.

Great information. Takes me back to all the drafting classes I had in Jr and Sr high school (Back when they had that stuff in school).

Generally, a better than average production. However, I will not stamp/sign anything that has lines running through characters. Too much risk to legibility and a sign of lazy to me.

Example of Map of Survey (Kent)

My issues with this drafting style are cosmetic and are the prerogative of the draftsman/surveyor and are of little consequence to this discussion (for the most part) however, I think the following issues can cause the end user to have issues with imparting the data on the map.

1. The legend. There is absolutely a time and place for a legend and using point symbols; however, I prefer to have the corner markers actually labeled beside the point. In cases of multiple markers, especially at larger scales, I think this is a better approach than the legend due to the graphic cannot relay with a written word can, (i.e. Set Standard Rod & Cap, Fnd. 1/2" Steel Rod East, 2.10 feet, Fnd. 1/2" Iron Pipe North 20°15' West, 2.62 feet).

2. The data table showing the calls vs. the found. Much like the legend, the end user must transition from the table back to the graphic. I think a better way to do it is to place the deed call, on the appropriate side of the line, so that it's representative of that particular deed call, so that when the end user is looking at the differences, they see the founds vs. the calls very easily within the graphic. This method keeps the end user focused.

Now, as with anything, there is a time and a place for what you have done. I have employed this tactic where maps are EXTREMELY busy, and it satisfies my interpretation of the board rules; however, for the most part, I think it detracts the attention from the end user and ultimately could cause for a delay in the data being presented.

That's not to say that what I think you've done is wrong, far from it, but I do not use that style in my practice for the above reasons.

Many people here cannot see the forest for the trees. The whole point is that as long as your survey meets your state requirements, your client is satisfied and future surveyors can follow your footsteps it is satisfactory.

Overall I like Kent's survey style but I am not rushing to change what I've developed over 30 years to match it. There are some good things.

1. He has very good use of letter sizes and line weights to emphasize what is important. I find this really helps and when using surveys from others that have all one line weight and letter size it slows me down.

2. I like the tabular descriptions. I do not do that myself but I am often dissatisfied with my shorthand description placed at the monument. I may try a combination of both. I would not use Kent's numbering system for monuments because I think it's a pain in the butt to look back and forth between the survey and a table but I love his ability to get a full description.

I also can find problems or at least differences to what I prefer on my plans.

1. This plat would be rejected by some registries in New Hampshire because of the lines running through texts. Not allowed in Rockingham County. Personally I think it is unprofessional.

2. A major flaw in my eyes is the lack of data on ties across the street. Are the ties 90 to the streetline or an extension of lot lines. I probably can determine that from the coordinates but I would much rather see it right there.

3. My personal preference is always to annotate all lines and curves on the survey. Nothing worse to me than having to bounce between the survey and the table. My neck gets sore and increases the chance of errors.

I don't expect Kent to change his drafting methods to suit me and I am sure he feels the same. So everybody stop being so critical, take what you want from it and move on.

This my way is better stinks of liberal "I'll tell you what is good for "!

The Hack